Objectivism versus Natural Rights?

[syrakusos]

When the Paul Ryan flap hit the press, Amy Peikoff interviewed Yaron Brook about Paul Ryan's having been "influenced" by Ayn Rand. ( "Don't Let It Go Unheard" blog radio with Yaron Brook hear here.) At about 8:50 min:sec in to about 10:45 min:sec out, Yaron Brook implied that Objectivism is not a natural rights philosophy.

This was new to my understanding. I thought that in the essay, "Man's Rights" Ayn Rand said: "Whether one believes that man is the product of a Creator or of nature, the issue of man's origin does not alter the fact that he is an entity of a specific kind - a rational being - that he cannot function successfully under coercion, and that rights are a necessary condition of his particular mode of survival." ("Man's Rights," The Virtue of Selfishness, hb, page 126.)

But, this is not absolute. We may well indeed learn language socially, but alone on an island, Robinson Crusoe still needed language. And, he needed morality. But he did not need rights.

Rights only exist in a social context. Robinson Crusoe could act immorally, but he could not violate his own rights.

Thus, rights are not intrinsic to human nature but only exist within the context of social life.

... or is there something I am missing? (... within the context of Objectivist canon.)

[Brant Gaede]

When the Paul Ryan flap hit the press, Amy Peikoff interviewed Yaron Brook about Paul Ryan's having been "influenced" by Ayn Rand. ( "Don't Let It Go Unheard" blog radio with Yaron Brook hear here.) At about 8:50 min:sec in to about 10:45 min:sec out, Yaron Brook implied that Objectivism is not a natural rights philosophy.

This was new to my understanding. I thought that in the essay, "Man's Rights" Ayn Rand said: "Whether one believes that man is the product of a Creator or of nature, the issue of man's origin does not alter the fact that he is an entity of a specific kind - a rational being - that he cannot function successfully under coercion, and that rights are a necessary condition of his particular mode of survival." ("Man's Rights," The Virtue of Selfishness, hb, page 126.)

But, this is not absolute. We may well indeed learn language socially, but alone on an island, Robinson Crusoe still needed language. And, he needed morality. But he did not need rights.

Rights only exist in a social context. Robinson Crusoe could act immorally, but he could not violate his own rights.

Thus, rights are not intrinsic to human nature but only exist within the context of social life.

... or is there something I am missing? (... within the context of Objectivist canon.)

But he is free. Rights are also right action. Alone on an island it's all personal. Rights exist and are protected when rights' philosophy is codified and enforced. They represent a human invention respecting man's nature. And as you said, they are not intrinsic, but the need for rights is. Note, while they are properly protected by society, they are not granted, only acknowledged. Granted rights are positive rights violating negative rights.

--Brant

[anthony]

Michael,

I recall no allusion by AR to natural rights, I think because she saw "Only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): A man's right to his own life."[Ayn Rand]

You could take that as THE single "natural" right, I suppose. (Or "inherent" right)

She didn't spend too much time expanding, I think because it is self-evident:- existence is axiomatic, therefore YOUR existence is axiomatic, which means unquestionable, and right and proper, as I understand it.

From the second axiom, identity, she obviously derives the further right - of action. If "Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action", then, BY HIS NATURE it is right and proper that a man must never be interfered with or constrained in his action. The next and last derivation of course, follows it, that it's right and proper for that man to keep and own the fruits of his actions - right to property.

(Without which, "no other rights are possible".ie: you take his property, you take his action - you take his freedom to act, you take his life.)

You know all this, but the reminder of how individual rights are derived is always a useful

exercise for me.

Never conferred or granted (as Brant says) - but only to be protected.

Arguably, the first - the 'given' right to one's own life - might be considered the one and only "natural" right, the rest consequential.

[Guyau]

Tony,

One’s right to life is not a starting-point, without antecedent argument for it, in Rand’s mature argument for individual rights. That life (and only life) is an organization that is an end in itself and that individual human life is necessarily such an organization in some respects can be argued for and become one of the relative starting-points in an argument for individual rights. From the circumstance that individual human life is necessarily an end in itself in certain biological respects, joined with further points about the place of conceptual consciousness in human life and the personal psychological requirements of such a consciousness, it then has to be argued that in all respects it is possible and right for each individual to make himself an end in himself or herself and that this poses norms respecting that rightness in interpersonal actions, norms we call individual rights.

What are called individual rights in American jurisprudence (and perhaps in your country too) are a proper subset of the more sweeping set of individual rights which Rand attempts to support by her argument to the proposition that in all respects it is possible and right for each individual to make himself an end in himself or herself and that this poses norms respecting that rightness in interpersonal actions. The broad scope of her argued proposition supports not only norms on the use of force against persons, as a matter of individual rights, but norms on property entitlements and hence on proper identification of which acts are force given those entitlements, as matters of individual rights.

I concur pretty much with your observations in #3 concerning Rand's theory. However, for that theory, I would say naturalness—as distinct from choices that sometimes do and sometimes do not accord with biological and psychological nature—stops before the proposition that an individual has a right to his own life. It stops with what is in biology and psychology, including causal relations.

[Brant Gaede]

The right to life as intrinsic means no right to an abortion--or at least the huge cultural conflict about that. It's the only "right" the right-to-lifers seem to be on about.

--Brant

it's either when human life begins (intrinsic) or human social life begins (Lockean-Randian)

[Dglgmut]

Rights are not about an individual's requirements for survival, because a man may need to steal from or kill another man in order to survive in certain circumstances. Rights are not about the survival of the species either, but the potential of the species. A state of recognized individual rights would be the best circumstances under which the species could progress.

It's morality taken to the collective level.

[MrBenjamatic]

Some rights are natural, the others are rights by social contract (charity, trading). Rights are the ability to use and dispose of, offer to trade and give away that which is yours and no one else's with no one else's permission. (See, if you wish, my justification of rights located at the end of my aesthetic discussion titled New Architecture, Couture). Your three profound rights, from which all your rights come, are your right to your mind and no one else's, your body and no one else's, your life and no one else's. Your mind, your life and your body and no one else's are yours and no one else's naturally, intrinsically. The rights which come from your right to your mind, body and life are the ideas of your mind (and no one else's), the material products of your mind and/or your body and no one else's (whether it be your creations and no one else’s or the financial profit earned by your creation and no one else's). Not ALL rights are natural; Your two unnatural rights are: the right to that which you earn by voluntarily trading with others and that which you and no one else recieve from others by voluntary charity. Your natural rights are your right to that which you created and that which is the product of your life, body and mind and no one else's, thereby they can't be naturally yours and thereby they can't be intrinsic. That which you recieve from charity is not the product of your life, body and/or mind and no one else's. Furthermore, in order to trade voluntarily you need the right to offer to trade that which is yours and no one else's without permission. In order to recieve charity others have to have the right to give away that which is theirs and no one else's. No rights, natural or unnatural, contradict eachother. Rights are the ability to use and dispose of, offer to trade and give away that which is yours and no one else's with no one else's permission.

Also, your natural rights ARE intrinsic (belonging to a thing by its very nature). Your right to your brain is intrinsic, for example. You will always have that right despite how many people forbid you to act on it as your right to your brain is intrinsic as only you and no one else can use it to concieve and that which you (and no one else) concieve is yours and no one else's. That which is concieved by your brain (and no one else's) is intrinsic as your right to your brain is intrinsic. "There is no such thing as a collective brain" -Ayn Rand. A man can claim your ideas and no one else's are his, but you will still have the right to those ideas: they will remain your ideas and no one else's whether others claim them or not. Your unnatural rights are the right to that which you earn by voluntarily trading with others and that which you and no one else recieve from others by voluntary charity. Your unnatural rights are not instrinsic as that which you recieve in a trade or from charity did not come from your mind, life, and/or body and no one else's. Your intrinsic (natural) rights are the product of exersizing your right to your body, life, mind and no one else's.

And, yes, rights are only neccessary among a group of two or more people. (I say people, not animals, as, if you live among animals it will do no good to try to claim your rights when they cannot concieve that concept). Animals, when they violate human rights, are punished all the same but they act automatically and they can't concieve of rights and respect them when their instincts lead them to do otherwise. Humans can violate other humans rights (and only humans can have rights). That is why it is within a group a humans where rights must be respected and made constitutional. The fact that rights must be made clear in a social context does not contradict the fact that you have a right to that which is yours and no one else's is yours and no one elses and is so naturally and intrinsically.

I also said that rights are the ability to use and dispose of, offer to trade and give away that which is yours and no one else's with no one else's permission. You have to have the liberty to exersize your ability in order to exersize your rights. Have I made sense?

As for abortion I hold a woman has the right to have an abortion as its her body and no one else's; without her body and no one else's the baby could not survive. In that stage of the babies life, the baby is a parasite. There can be no right to parasitically feed on that which is not yours and no one elses. That which the parasitical baby uses to survive is the product, not of the baby, but of the mother and no one else. The mother, like every one else who doesn't initiate force, has the right to use and dispose of, offer to trade and give away that which is hers and no one else's without permission. Does this make sense?

[Brant Gaede]

If you can't reduce this to something much simpler you have some more to learn about rights and not yet much to teach*--except for that. Intrinsic is material; rights aren't material. When you have the government behind you protecting your rights you're using force to beat up on the bad guys. Rights and wrongs. There is a philosophy of natural wrongs. We can call it the philosophy of positive rights. In such the government beats you up to give some of you to someone else against your will. Negative rights are moral, positive rights are immoral. Positive rights aren't intrinsic either and they are unnatural**. Natural and unnatural refer to the human needs of the good guys on the one hand and the human needs of the bad guys on the other.

--Brant

*I too have more to learn about rights, but I think I'm finally over the hump

**the human animal is a natural producer, not a stealer from other humans--because of the inherent conflict between producer and stealer one has to be natural and the other perverted natural--that is, not natural at all; there is nothing per se perverted about the creation of wealth

[MrBenjamatic]

The definition of intrinsic I used was "belonging to something as one of the basic and essential features that make it what it is". My justification of rights can be found at the end of my aesthetic post "New Architecture, Couture". I have based rights directly off the laws of logic. I can't think of a simpler way of doing it. My post above is based on my justification (from my aesthetic post) and is not the justification itself merely an application of my justification.

By the way, what do you mean when you say negative and positive rights? I've held negative to mean doesn't and/or can't exist (edx. -1 couches cannot exist).

Human animal is a contradiction. Animals have instinct and humans do not. I think you were using those words to describe a baby? I've never thought about whether a baby was a human or not as it acts automatically (to the extent of my knowlege). Either way, beings with no will can't have rights (as you have no right to act if you can't chose to act or not to act) and how can a baby sustain its own existence without its umbilical cord? It is precisely the umbilical cord which makes the baby the mothers property (as its naturally attached to her body and no one else's) and she has the right to dispose of her property.

[Brant Gaede]

The definition of intrinsic I used was "belonging to something as one of the basic and essential features that make it what it is". My justification of rights can be found at the end of my aesthetic post "New Architecture, Couture". I have based rights directly off the laws of logic. I can't think of a simpler way of doing it. My post above is based on my justification (from my aesthetic post) and is not the justification itself merely an application of my justification.

By the way, what do you mean when you say negative and positive rights? I've held negative to mean doesn't and/or can't exist (edx. -1 couches cannot exist).

Is your aesthetic post* a thread?

Negative means not granted and is only used to mark the difference with positive as in You have a right to a chicken in your pot or health care or food stamps. NIOF.

--Brant

*I want to read it (again?)

[MrBenjamatic]

Not granted by whom or by what. Its that broad of a definition?

New Architecture, Couture is a discussion I posted which can be found in the aesthetic section of this website.

[Brant Gaede]

Not granted by whom or by what. Its that broad of a definition?

New Architecture, Couture is a discussion I posted which can be found in the aesthetic section of this website.

We can say "granted" by your individualistic, thinking (rational) productive free-trading nature.

--Brant

[MrBenjamatic]

You apply the "admit truth" definition to grant, I think. I don't agree that it truthfully fits in the context of your posts. Truth is truth whether anyone admits it or not. What exact definition are you using? I can't grasp your definition so I can't grasp your premise.

[caroljane]

Mbj, spelling hint:

"I before E except after C

or when sounded as A as in neighbour and weigh"

[MrBenjamatic]

Which word have I mispelled? Thanks for the hint by the way, I do slip here and there

[Brant Gaede]

You apply the "admit truth" definition to grant, I think. I don't agree that it truthfully fits in the context of your posts. Truth is truth whether anyone admits it or not. What exact definition are you using? I can't grasp your definition so I can't grasp your premise.

Rights are granted or not granted by government.

If granted by government they really aren't rights for they involve the government initiating physical force and are rights' violating.

Negative and positive rights is an epistemological differentiation of one from the other. If that doesn't help you, ignore it and just use natural rights, acknowledged and protected by government as a philosophical invention and social blessing. Simply be aware that non-libertarians will be constantly coming at you with right to this and right to that and you won't be well armed to explain what is really what in that respect. If you've a nifty counter to such an assault, I'd love to hear it.

--Brant

[MrBenjamatic]

I hold that the right to that which is yours and no one elses and is yours naturally (see my explanation above) is something you are born with as it is an ability. Rights are the ability to use and dispose of, offer to trade and give away that which is yours and no one else's with no one else's permission. Ability is the best word I could think of for the context of my explanation and justification of rights.

Furthermore, it is right to be moral and in order to be moral you have to exersize your ability to use and dispose of, offer to trade that which is yours and no one else's with no one else's permission. Though rights include the ability to give away that which is yours and no one else's without permission, it cannot be moral to give something away.

[caroljane]

Which word have I mispelled? Thanks for the hint by the way, I do slip here and there

Receive, conceive etc.

You're welcome.

[MrBenjamatic]

Which word have I mispelled? Thanks for the hint by the way, I do slip here and there

Receive, conceive etc.

You're welcome.

Your right!

[Dglgmut]

Which word have I mispelled? Thanks for the hint by the way, I do slip here and there

Receive, conceive etc.

You're welcome.

Your right!

Your rite*!

Also: Individual rights are not concerned with an individual, but every individual. Collectivism is a way of fighting the non-conformers, while individualism is a way of not fighting at all.

[anthony]

I hold that the right to that which is yours and no one elses and is yours naturally (see my explanation above) is something you are born with as it is an ability. Rights are the ability to use and dispose of, offer to trade and give away that which is yours and no one else's with no one else's permission. Ability is the best word I could think of for the context of my explanation and justification of rights.

Furthermore, it is right to be moral and in order to be moral you have to exersize your ability to use and dispose of, offer to trade that which is yours and no one else's with no one else's permission. Though rights include the ability to give away that which is yours and no one else's without permission, it cannot be moral to give something away.

MrBen,

Have you got ahold of VoS and CUI yet? As Xray advised you somewhere,

you have to check those premises (also, definitions). Otherwise all your logic -

and some of it seems tautologous, and begs the question - is going to fall down.

Great to go about it your own way, but having also spent years re-inventing the wheel,

I learned finally that stubborn pride can be the flipside of an independent mindset.

The sooner you grasp Rand's ideas at source, the less ingrained the errors you

will have to prise out later.

THEN, that independent mind will come into its own.

[caroljane]

I hold that the right to that which is yours and no one elses and is yours naturally (see my explanation above) is something you are born with as it is an ability. Rights are the ability to use and dispose of, offer to trade and give away that which is yours and no one else's with no one else's permission. Ability is the best word I could think of for the context of my explanation and justification of rights.

Yet you are born. a parasite. subsisting solely through others, by your definition. Do parasites have rights?

[Brant Gaede]

"It cannot be moral to give something away."

Rationalism will leave you in the ditch with statements like this.

--Brant

[Xray]

Some rights are natural, the others are rights by social contract (charity, trading).

Needs can be natural, but what what rights are "natural"? isn't the notion of "right" a construction of the human mind?

[Xray]

When the Paul Ryan flap hit the press, Amy Peikoff interviewed Yaron Brook about Paul Ryan's having been "influenced" by Ayn Rand. ( "Don't Let It Go Unheard" blog radio with Yaron Brook hear here.) At about 8:50 min:sec in to about 10:45 min:sec out, Yaron Brook implied that Objectivism is not a natural rights philosophy.

This was new to my understanding. I thought that in the essay, "Man's Rights" Ayn Rand said: "Whether one believes that man is the product of a Creator or of nature, the issue of man's origin does not alter the fact that he is an entity of a specific kind - a rational being - that he cannot function successfully under coercion, and that rights are a necessary condition of his particular mode of survival." ("Man's Rights," The Virtue of Selfishness, hb, page 126.)

But, this is not absolute. We may well indeed learn language socially, but alone on an island, Robinson Crusoe still needed language. And, he needed morality. But he did not need rights.

Rights only exist in a social context. Robinson Crusoe could act immorally, but he could not violate his own rights.

Doesn't morality too only exist in a social context?

As for Yaron Brook pointing out that Objectivism is not a natural rights philosophy: 'natural' connected with rights has the connotation of 'intrinsic', which would go against Objectivist premises.